These are halcyon days for conspiracy theorists. It's possible that with the help of the internet such theories will propagate exponentially forever and we'll look back on 2016 as a more innocent time, but I don't relish the opportunity to live in a world where a wider range of conspiracy theories are more gleefully embraced than they are today.
Conspiracy theories are appealing for two reasons: they make the world seem more interesting and exciting than it really is ("Hillary stole the nomination" is a much better hook than "It was unlikely that a 74 year old Vermont socialist who isn't a member of the Democratic Party was looking at an uphill battle to win the Democratic nomination, and honestly if there was a conspiracy against him he wouldn't have come nearly as close to winning as he did") and they allow people to shift responsibility. We didn't lose, we were cheated. I'm not a failure, the (Jews, Unions, Liberals, feminists, immigrants) stole what I deserve. Both of these things make conspiracy theories inherently appealing, and for valid reasons.
buy furosemide online buy furosemide no prescription
Nobody likes being bored or having to blame themselves for the things they aren't happy about.
Not all conspiracy theories enjoy equal acceptance, though, and the most plausible ones – the ones that seem like they have enough circumstantial evidence to make them true-ish – have the upper hand. You don't hear anyone but the most fringe unstable types talking about chemtrails, but large numbers of people believe, for example, that global warming or the price of gasoline are the products of conspiracies. Identifying a group of people who could benefit (Scientists! Environmentalists! Liberals!) a theory seems more plausible, and identifying individuals or groups who seem to have control over a fluctuating commodity (OPEC! Obama! The Saudis! The Jews, because it's always Jews!) allows people who don't care to bother with the details below the surface to take comfort in having found the answer.
I do not for a moment endorse the conspiracy theory that Trump is tanking this election on purpose to ensure that his supposed close buddy Hillary Clinton wins – Look, they stood next to each other in a picture in 1994, what more evidence to you need? What other explanation could there be for the First Lady and a famous rich person to have been in the same room together? – but the past three weeks have made it perfectly clear why so many people have latched onto it. I don't believe it, because there is no evidence to support it.
But Trump has melted down so completely and seems to be going so far out of his way to think of what he can say that will finally get his acolytes to stop cheering for him that it's only logical for people who are cynical and pay limited attention to politics to seize upon this as an explanation for his otherwise inexplicable behavior. Trying to make sense out of nonsense is normal.
The truth, as usual, is more mundane: the man has a personality disorder, and an attention-craving narcissist who relies on shock value has to continually up the ante in order to keep achieving the same effect (think Howard Stern, Marilyn Manson, etc.) And once you've attacked a dead US Army soldier's parents and asked Russian agents to steal classified information to help your campaign, I guess the only way to increase the shock value from there is to make "jokes" about your supporters killing Hillary Clinton.
buy valtrex online buy valtrex no prescription
That's why it seems like this is playing out to a script, like each week brings a calculated increase in the extent to which Trump seemingly goes out of his way to get people not to vote for him.
I don't believe Trump cares about anyone but Trump, or that he is trying to help Clinton win. I do understand how people could look at this shitshow and come to that conclusion, though. The popularity of that theory is the best testament to just how bad he and his campaign are.
We're witnessing something historic here. Think of how badly a team would have to lose the Super Bowl, for example, before it would enter your mind (and seem plausible) that they were losing on purpose to help their friends on the other sideline.
wnsrfr says:
I don't believe in any conspiracy, but I do believe Trump didn't expect it to get this far. So, it has gone from a self-promoting publicity stunt to a brand-destroying self immolation.
SeaTea says:
One thing I find interesting is how totally unable to learn he seems to be. Not just gaffe after gaffe, but actually worse and worse gaffes. I agree that, at some point (and we've well passed that point) it stops being plausible that he is trying to win and believes he can win by saying that Obama and Hillary are "literally" the founders of ISIS. Or any one of a dozen other outrageous things he's said.
I can see how someone would arrive at the logical conclusion he isn't trying to win since nobody who has ever won has run a campaign like this, and his numbers are going in the wrong direction yet he doesn't change tactics.
The question becomes then, why isn't he trying to win? "To help Hillary" seems like a really unlikely place to land after asking that question.
gzt says:
The shocking thing, then, is how his poll results are still as high as they are. He really could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and a bunch of his people wouldn't budge. Now that he's the nominee, that includes the RNC.
Marc Marton says:
You don't think the oil market is manipulated?
Davis X. Machina says:
One thing I find interesting is how totally unable to learn he seems to be.
Look at it from Trump's point of view:
Why does he have to learn at all? He's campaigning right. All previous campaigns have been doing it wrong.
Skipper says:
You don't believe in chemtrails? That's appalling. Chemtrails are part of a government attempt to kill its main source of revenue. If you don't see the logic in that, then I feel sorry for you.
Tom says:
I don't know. Neil O'Donnell threw the same interception twice in Super Bowl 30.
Khaled says:
Oh, I think Trump is trying to win, it's just that he's a complete and total narcissist and refuses to listen to anyone who isn't telling him how smart and talented he is and how much people love him. He's a rich kid who's had a serious of disastrous business ventures. He has surrounded himself with yes-men and boot-lickers his entire business career, why should running for president be any different?
jon says:
A man who isn't trying desperately to win wouldn't be doing such desperate things. If he just wanted to lose, he'd just stick to "Abortion is bad, teachers unions are destroying us, taxes are too high, terrorism sucks, and Common Core math is crazy!" just like all the other losers he already beat in the primaries. Instead, he's branching out into Obama and Clinton created ISIS, Russia would be extra awesome if it hacked a State Department server (that's probably in the custody of the FBI and CIA at the moment,) and "Second Amendment, people" or "Second Amendment people".
John Danley says:
Every time he receives a flabbergasted, pull-the-eyebrows-out-of-your-ass- crack reaction from the media for his troglodytic, Tommy Pitera-esque commentary, it only strengthens the scaffolding of his own preconceived conspiracy theories.
Major Kong says:
Trump hasn't figured out the first rule of holes.
When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging.
Kaleberg says:
In the past there have been comedians who have garnered a bit of attention during election years by running joke campaigns. I remember Pat Paulsen back in the 1960s with his 69 cent a plate cafeteria fund raiser. If nothing else, he got a bit of press coverage that likely led to more guest appearances and more bookings.
I agree with you that Donald Trump has a need to be at the center of attention, so he was a big public promoter when he was mainly a real estate developer. Most NYC real estate moguls keep a very low profile. It is hard for most to name more than a handful, but Trump was out there making noise in a business that is supposed to be about making money, not noise. Then he got his television show which meant even more attention. He was not only a loud real estate developer, but he also played one on television. Politics was the next logical step. I don't think it was a joke, just that politics seems to be a common next logical step. Look at Ronald Reagan or Al Franken. The name recognition is already there, and that's a hard first step in politics.
Unlike Pat Paulsen's campaign, Donald Trump was serious, though his motivation was similar. He wanted more attention, and he got it. It doesn't take a conspiracy.
For more Paulsen: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pat_paulsen_2.html
Well ,... mostly says:
I spent 5 years helping my now wife divorce a man with the same personality type, but not the money, as Mr. Trump. Yes, we often wondered if he was trying to lose his case on purpose by aggravating the judge. Here's what we learned: he simply could not help himself, could not change tactics, had no strategy and backed himself into a corner time and again. He always doubled down on positions. No pressure from even his own attorneys (he went through 5 before trying it himself) ever slowed him down. He thought all the court officers and appointed experts were conspiring against him. He ended up with a worse deal than the one his ex proposed.
There is no way to explain this rationally. Narcissism is not a joke. As long as Mr. Trump can get applause during a rally he'll keep going. Why not? Of course, his comments will get more severe. There really is no other option.
Suggesting some conspiracy to help HRC is nonsense and it's embarrassing to see people say that. It proves only that they have never dealt with a true narcissist. He is incapable of doing anything to help someone else.
There's only one way to treat him: ignore everything he does. I'm sorry to see HRC going at him. That will only prompt more of the same. Feeding the troll I think they call that. If she wants to see him dissolve, just ignore him. If she did that he would go fetal. Ask any shrink you know.
Sorry for the long comment. I haven't seen anyone else saying this.
Gabe says:
Anyone who's been close to a sociopathic narcissist (dated or been a family member, they don't have other people that are willing to get close to them) could see what was going on back in May. That's about when it was clear that he was gaslighting everyone and expecting no one to notice. I shudder to think about what my ex-boyfriend would have done if he had started with a cool million dollar loan from dad and never been contested about anything. After a year of dating and going no contact, it took me another year of therapy to prove to myself that I wasn't going totally crazy. This country is going to need much better mental health services after this election, especially for those poor confused journalists and TV hosts.
A Different Nate says:
My personal theory is that Donald Trump is actually a brilliant historian from the future who has come to our time in order to conduct research on A) just how awful a candidate has to be to fall below 40% electoral support in the US, and B) the craziest nonsense he can get people to believe. So far I imagine his results have proven deeply disheartening.
Rugosa says:
Gabe – interesting how sociopathic narcissists can be attractive at first. They exude a level of confidence that can seem like competence. Then you find out that when they say they went to college, they mean they dropped out, and when they say they ran a business, they mean they ran it into the ground, etc. I've known a couple of these who seemed to have experience in every job area that ever came up in conversation. After a while, you realize it means they couldn't hang onto a job – fired for incompetence or left because once people got to know them, no one could stand working with them. The inheriting millions part is the only thing that makes DJT different.
Nate says:
MANAFORT: OK, this Clinton Foundation story is really bad for Hillary. We just need a focused resp–
TRUMP: Obama is the caliph of ISIS
Skipper says:
@Well,…mostly — That's what Michael Dukakis did to the vicious attacks from the George HW Bush campaign. They tossed out the smears, and Michael took the high road. Surely, you remember President Dukakais.
duquesne_pdx says:
My personal theory is that he's the dog that caught the car, and now has no idea what to do with it.
If the GOP primary candidates hadn't been such an obvious clown car, or if there had been fewer candidates, he never would have gotten the plurality wins early to build momentum for later. Once he won the nomination, why would he do anything other than double down on the racist/nationalist/isolationist rhetoric. After all, it's what got him the win in the first place.
His current strategy seems to parallel the overall Republican strategy of "if we lost, it's because we weren't conservative enough!" crap that they've been shilling for the last couple of decades. In his case, though, it's happening in real time. "My polls are going down? I've gotta say something *really* awesome today!" Narcissist? You betcha! Sociopath? Probably the high functioning type that ends up running businesses. Clueless about what to do other than double down? I've gotta get me some more popcorn.
Emerson Dameron says:
None of this is new for Trump. He is neither savvy nor shrewd and never has been. He basically sucks at everything he's ever tried save for being a celebrity.
http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188
The only exception here is scale. This is the most extreme manifestation yet of what has been his MO all along.
Emerson Dameron says:
PS: It is worth noting that Trump inhabits the lonely, brutal, zero-sum world that is real estate. Add that to the writhing paranoia of a not-very-smart-or-talented person who has fucked over lots and lots of people.
http://www.vox.com/a/donald-trump-books
Assuming he does have all of his mental faculties, his map of reality is nonetheless quite different from the ones the rest of us use.
Dan says:
Josh Marshall over at Talking Points memo has formulated a simple heuristic to explain the ridiculous things Trump does. He calls it Trump's Razor (in homage to Occam's): According to Trump's Razor: "Ascertain the stupidest possible scenario that can be reconciled with the available facts, and that answer is likely correct."
See http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-scythian-slice-of-trump-s-razor
Works pretty well!
J. Dryden says:
Ed observed a while back that–among the many other reasons why Trump would never be president–Trump "has never succeeded at anything, ever." While this is hyperbole, the degree to which it edges close to a Holy Shit He's Right level of truth is curious when juxtaposed against the consistent self-presentation of Trump as a man who has known only success.
Which leaves us, really, one of two possibilities: either Trump, like any con man, is presenting a false front–that is, he knows he's a fraud and a serial failure, but also knows that the way to surmount such unpleasantries is to bluster loudly to the contrary. (I'd call this the Wizard of Oz approach, except that as any reader of the book will tell you, the Wizard was actually pretty good at his job–he just wasn't a Wizard.) If this is the case, then we simply have to look down to road to see what he really wants–I've heard "TV Channel" floated as a possibility. Thus, the outrageousness of his behavior IS self-aware, and IS the result of a kind of 'conspiracy,' but only one that disguises his ultimate self-interest (PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT) as a presidential campaign.
Honestly, I think that this was what we were all thinking when the runup to the primaries began–that this was just some way of getting NBC to renew "The Apprentice" for another season.
Then there's the other possibility.
This would require us to diagnose Trump with a pretty goddamn devastating list of mental abnormalities–the kind we see floated in 'think pieces' at Vox and (Fuck Those Guys) Gawker. Because the disruption between objective, measurable reality and Trump's characterization of his level of success is such a chasm that if it is not a knowing lie, can only be the result of a complete break with said reality. (Either that or, I suppose, he's surrounded by a bubble of enablement to rival the Imperial Court of Nero. Though such enablement inevitably leads to madness, so, you know, tomayto-tomahto.)
Feeding off of Dan's earloer comment: Occam's razor is always your friend on such occasions (and, when it comes to conspiracy theories, I enjoy Napoleon's corollary: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.") Either Trump is pulling a con, or he is legitimately mentally ill.
Given his history, I'm voting for 'con.'
Mack says:
I would like to add to Ed's list of appeals of conspiracy theories one aspect that I think is of great import and plays a major part in right-wing lunacy. Conspiracies are indeed often employed to remove blame or responsibility for ones situation and project that upon some "other". However, I think that another motivation is the satisfaction of feeling superior to others. The Trump demographic hates the fact that they no longer – by virtue of their whiteness – can sit atop a hierarchy of otherwise similarly endowed (class, education, etc) non-whites. Believing in conspiracies – because YOU HAVE SEEN THE TRUTH, others are just too stupid to see what's RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!! That's very seductive. Unfortunately, while seemingly much more prominent on the right, the left is in no way immune to this same conceit.
mago says:
"When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging."
Righto.
And when you're lost in the woods you sit down and stay where you are.
JasonOH says:
What boggles my mind most about his gaffes is that with few exceptions, he is barely a step away from either a harmless answer or even one that would make him look smart.
The Khan family. That was a freaking softball. "My heart goes out to the Khans, their son was a hero, blah blah blah. My goal should I become president is to make sure that fewer great men like him have to lose their lives in foreign lands." Easy! And he comes up with, "Why isn't mom talking, DOES HER MUSLIM HUSBAND FORBID IT?!"
The stuff yesterday was insane. If you want to talk about Hillary and the 2A, you only have to use her own words, you don't have to say anything inflammatory. She's on the record advocating policy that hardcore gun people hate. Just fucking point it out! That's all you have to do!
And on and on. Whatever mental condition he has or doesn't have, I've concluded that he's also just plain dumb.
Skepticalist says:
I believe that Trump was a last ditch attempt by space aliens trying to prepare us for extermination after enslaving our wimmin and yutes. Everybody makes mistakes.
So as not to make things worse they came up with a stroke of genius. After giving Trump a shot, they saw it was over and decided to get rid of Trump by sticking him with the Republicans.
By this, they're also doing us a great favor by letting us enjoy the show.
quixote says:
Honestly, you people. And I'm including Ed. I thought you were all smarter than this.
It's obviously the white mice. Douglas Adams was the first to twig to the truth, as he so often was. You know about the mice, right? The ones who want you to think scientists are observing them in a lab. The ones who are really running the world. That preposterous orange weave is just hiding the complex control unit they haven't miniaturized enough yet for subdermal injection.
Ordinary humans haven't got a chance of figuring out what they're really studying. (Douglas Adams! Where are you when we need you?) Probably just stress-testing the control unit before using it for real, pushing it to its limits, that kind of thing.
You'll notice there were a couple of times when the Trumpsterfire just read from the teleprompter. That's when they were switching out failed control units for new improved models.
Kathy from Indiana says:
Has anyone considered requesting Adult Protective Services do a welfare check on Melania? I haven't heard or seen anything from or about any of the kids lately, either. When are the kids going to sit him down and tell him that when he tanks, so will they. They are just as invested in his "brand" as he is at this point. I'm sure their mothers are asking their attorneys "At what point is the nondisclosure agreement void?" It would be **Fabulous** and YUUUGE! if they started talking. Surely by now, with the kids grown, they aren't being supported by him any longer. Think of the book deals they would get!
Khaled says:
@Dryden
I really think he has surrounded himself with a Nero-like bubble of enablement. Look at his gaudy, impossibly ugly casinos and developments. He and his people brag about how he micro-manages the design of it all, picking out the carpet, etc., and since it is all super tacky and ugly, he literally has no one around him that dares tell him "uh, boss, that sucks". He is an entitled man-baby. He never pays his bills, bullies his lenders into taking awful deals because it's better than nothing and has the fame to get more dumbasses to loan him money, and has his dad's fortune to back him up.
He has almost never had to actually face the consequences of his actions, and his reaction to any alleged "slight" is to fly off the handle and insult and demean the person until the offending party says "fuck it" and walks away from the confrontation. He sues, or threatens to sue, anyone who reports negative things about him.
I may have disliked the run-up to the election on the Democratic side, where every high-profile Democrat sat on the sidelines to let Hillary run (and no, the DNC had no obligation to Sanders. Since when is he a Democrat?) but it sure beat what the Republicans had going. What if Cruz, Rubio, and Trump were the only candidates in Iowa? We'd be talking about Rubio giving Hillary a run for her money. Instead we have vulgar talking yam (to borrow from Charles Pierce) running the Republican party into the ground.
Jimcat says:
Another possible explanation (wow, there are so many) for why Trump says the things he does is that he's not trying to drive voters away – he's just trying to entertain the people at his rallies. The things he says are the sort of things that the sort of people who attend Trump rallies will eat up. Unfortunately for the Presidential campaign, but fortunately for the United States, the Trump-rally folks are a minority of the voting public, and these statements are driving away people who aren't supporters yet but otherwise might join him.
Bottom line, he's not actively trying to lose, but his goal is inconsistent with winning.
The article linked below does a good job of explaining:
"Instead of following some hidden but stable agenda, I would suggest Trump’s goal is simply to “not be boring” at Trump rallies. He wants to entertain, and to be the focus of attention at all times. He’s said as much, and it’s consistent with what we know about him."
https://mathbabe.org/2016/08/11/donald-trump-is-like-a-biased-machine-learning-algorithm/
Desmond says:
This really is an interesting political experiment, what DOES a candidate need to say or do to drop below 40% support? US politics have become so tribal, so polarized, that it seems nearly impossible for this to happen, even with a transparent joke of a candidate like Trump. And he isn't even a GOOD joke.
Aurora S says:
@Kathy:
Believe me, I know the narcissist game inside and out–Trump cannot be arsed to give a hot fuck about anyone but Trump. He uses his kids and wife as a means to an end. All the world's a stage and Trump is the star, every other person in his life is supporting cast. He has no self-awareness or perspective. He is completely incapable at seeing things from others' point of view, because as far as he's concerned, others don't really exist. They just serve to tell his story. If he cares about his kids, it's because of how it makes *him* look as a father to others. He cares about the show, that's all.
It's not even so much about the money as it is about the reputation and status that comes with the money. He says outrageous shit to manufacture conflict so he can bully others. He sows seeds of discord to offer plausible deniability for when he "retaliates" against those who "attack" him (or, for those who operate in reality, he provokes others to react, then he "punishes" them for doing so, to feel better about himself). He really does think this is America: The Reality TV Show, and he's going to make sure he's not getting voted off the island.
@Desmond:
If there's one thing that this guy is legitimately successful at, it's manipulation. Human psychology is such that we LOVE a shitshow. So-called "reality" tv has been popular for what…10, 15 years now? We can't look away from a flaming turd, and he's really, really good at capitalizing on that. It doesn't have to be creative or even particularly good, it just has to be a spectacle and we're fucking glued. I'm just disappointed he didn't choose Kim Kardashian as his running mate.
RW Force says:
… what DOES a candidate need to say or do to drop below 40% support?
George McGovern pulled 37.5% in 1972
Alan C says:
@JasonOH:
Another example of Trump going off the rails when he could have said something reasonable was the latest comment about Obama and ISIS. He could reasonably have criticized Obama's Middle East policy as counterproductive, exacerbating the problems, etc. But no. He had to go, "Obama founded ISIS!" and then double down on it.
I never thought in my life I'd see a major presidential candidate (a) openly invite a foreign power to meddle in our elections or (b) "subtly" hint that his supporters might use "2nd Amendment" solutions against her or her judicial appointees. And yet he's done both within a couple weeks. This is the weirdest campaign I've ever lived through. And it feels like it will never end.
Jack the Cold Warrior says:
Yes, it is the weirdest.. But not the worst, especially if you were politically aware in 1968. And the absolute worst has to be the aftermath of the 1860 election, when southern Americans went bat shit crazy.
duquesne_pdx says:
At this point, if I were in charge of Clinton's advertising campaign, I would merely do the following:
1. Get all of the clips that I could find from the last 3 – 4 years of Trump being idiotic/inflammatory/racist/sexist/incoherent/&tc., run them all together, cut it up into 30 second segments and run them as advertisements starting with "This man wants to be POTUS" and ending with "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."
2. Gather images/video of all of the various racist/nationalist/conspiracy driven organizations that have thrown their endorsements to Trump. "These are the people that support Donald Trump."
3. For the downticket races, "These people stand with Trump." Alternating video of downticket candidates and Trump being Trump.
It'd be entertaining, at least.
geoff says:
I am pretty foily (i.e. of a conspiratorial mindset), but hell, it's obvious even to me that the Giant Evil Baby's REAL problem is that he cannot help himself– he is entirely incapable of shutting the fuck up and not digging himself deeper.
What's REALLY entertaining is watching the GEB's defenders bend over backwards excusing his obviously offensive and ridiculous and well, FALSE statements: "Khizr Khan is Muslim Brotherhood!! Obama enabled the rise of ISIS! HRC is having DNC staff and critics assassinated!!"
What a time to be alive!!
(But yes, if I didn't know better– and of course I DON'T– I'd say He Shall Not Be Named is trying to throw the election by simply spouting the most outrageous bullshit possible 24/7. What's scary is how many people are buying it and apologizing for him.)
Zak44 says:
Aurora S:
Your comment rings true with me.
I had thought that one reason Trump could not alter his behavior was that he is only capable of playing to whatever room he's in and unable to see beyond it.
Then it occurred to me that he IS the room. His audiences exist only to reinforce and amplify his fabulism and grandiosity. That may be why his reaction to protestors is so feral: any opponent is a voice in his head that that doesn't belong there and must be cast out with extreme prejudice.
We rarely see this kind of dysfunction played out on such a massive stage. There's a fascination to it that's like a slow-motion disaster that we can't stop watching, no matter how appalling it becomes.
It's going to be an exhausting three months till Election Day.
PS to RW Force:
That McGovern number may be one of the most depressing statistics ever.
geoff says:
@Zak44– Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion (HST) NOT a winning strategy in 1972 alas.
geoff says:
Also, "Is Trump's Campaign Locking Him Out of Twitter?" (Atlantic)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-twitter-iphone-android/495239/
defineandredefine says:
To be fair, the Saudis are terrible.
S M McBean says:
I found this enlightening:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
He's pledged all royalties he gets this year to charities to help "people whose rights Trump seeks to abridge"
Zak44 says:
geoff:
That wasn't his strategy. I was going to say it was a Republican smear, but then I looked up the origin of the phrase. Turns out the gist of it came from Senator Tom Eagleton, during the Democratic primary—in which Eagleton was supporting Ed Muskie.
In an interview with columnist Robert Novak, Eagleton expressed his view that "…McGovern’s surging popularity depends on public ignorance of his acknowledged public positions. 'The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot,' he told us. 'Once middle America—Catholic middle America, in particular—once they find out, he’s dead.'"
Eagleton, of course, went on to sink whatever chance McGovern had by not revealing, after McGovern had picked him for VP, that he had undergone electroshock treatment for mental illness.
Ironically, as this article points out, the slogan pretty well misrepresented McGovern's policies. http://tinyurl.com/hyrkutf
It was a bleak election night that year, but at some point that evening, I made what was my only successful political prediction. Believe it or not (I have witnesses) I said that Nixon would not serve out his term; that he had so many potential scandals hanging over him that one would come crashing down and drive him from office.
If I could only remember what I was drinking that night, I'd buy a case and head for Las Vegas.
geoff says:
@Zak, thanks for the recollection. Pretty much all I know about McGovern I learned from "Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72". And my parents LOATHING Nixon.
I DO remember Novak, however. He wasn't called "The Prince of Darkness" for nothing. WTF was Eagleton thinking??
geoff says:
FYI for the whippersnappers (like me) out there, Eagleton was quoted anonymously for Novak's "acid, amnesty, abortion" hitpiece, and Novak did not reveal him as the source until after Eagleton's death in 2007.
Zak44 says:
Well, at that point, Eagleton was trying to derail McGovern, so anything was fair game. Or maybe he was having an electroshock flashback. One of the great ironies of presidential campaign history was that the GOP was able to paint McGovern as a spineless "peacenik," when he was, in reality, a decorated combat veteran who captained a B-24 in 35 missions against the Nazis (Nixon served, but as a REMF). McGovern hardly mentioned his war record because, like many combat vets, he felt that the real heroes were the guys who didn't come back. He was so quiet about this that most of us who supported him knew very little of it.
If you're interested in the period, and how Nixon's rise to power set the stage for today's politics, I highly reccommend Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland." I lived through those years and still learned stuff I never knew about them. Here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/znjy5lk
Townsend Harris says:
In summer and autumn 1972 I was a 15-year old high school volunteer for George McGovern, knocking on doors and phone banking for the November election. It was my first-ever GOTV experience, and McGovern's loss convinced me working on local, down-ballot elections would be smart: not everything was decided on the national stage.
Thanks, George.
geoff says:
@Zak, I actually have read "Nixonland" (and Pearlstein's Goldwater and Reagan books), but yes thanks. What struck me most about "Nixonland" was just how FRIGHTENING the times (1968) were. Not too long ago I briefly thought things were feeling '68ish (what with San Bernardino and Orlando and Dallas and Nice and pick your own recent attrocity), but quickly realized that we're not experiencing large scale urban uprisings and political assassinations or ANYTHING like the craziness of 1968.
(And yes, painting McGovern, a decorated WWII bomber pilot as some kind of lily-livered peacenik was a real triumph of Nixonian ratfucking.)
David says:
Ed, I know your point is about Trump's crazy nonsense, but did you have to use complaints about the Democratic campaign's irregularities as an example of a "crazy conspiracy"? There is substantial documentation in this case (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2&pli=1) This is NOT "chemtrails" or "jet fuel" nonsense. I've seen ballots with votes for Bernie Sanders whited out. I've seen forged signatures on registration forms.
OtherAndrew says:
What hasn't been seen is a sufficient number or volume of irrelgularities that would explain a vote delta in excess of a million votes. That's what makes it a conspiracy theory; the insistance that what's been demonstrated is merely the tip of the iceberg based entirely on fervent extrapolation.
David says:
@OtherAndrew: The standards used in the paper from ElectionJusticeUSA are the same standards that the UN and the USA use to call fraud in other nations' elections.
Lawsuits have been filed. Yes, I know, many a lawsuit is frivolous, but since these attorneys are not looking to make huge contingency fees, their motivation is less suspect. And they have the evidence.
125,000 voters in Brooklyn, alone! That's an awful lot of "tip of the iceberg."
Zak44 says:
geoff:
I was drafted in 1967 and, as a result of the Pueblo incident in early '68, providentially wound up getting sent to Korea instead of Vietnam. I think the chronicle of '68—the riots, the Kennedy and King assassinations, the Chicago convention—looked a lot scarier from abroad. I think this may have had something to do with the fact that we had an unbalanced perspective: we weren't there to experience everyday life going on in spite of everything, but disproportionately saw the most extreme events. Which is not to say the times weren't crazy enough back home.
It even got to the point that, when Nixon won, I felt that "if he can pull us out of this, more power to him." And I had hated the sonofabitch since I was a kid.
But of course, he didn't. He needlessly prolonged the war and made the country even more divided.
geoff says:
Yes– the great thing about "Nixonland" is it really got across WHY so many people were ready to vote for Nixon (just four years after Johnson's '64 landslide), and how scary the times actually were. And Perlstein wasn't even BORN yet.
Beleck says:
amazing how times seem to be repeating itself. however the Oligarchy rules supreme now.
life insurace says:
i agree with the point that rises @MarcMarton that due to this oil market is manipulated.